Talk:Department of Finance
---- Do you mean PPP Purchasing power parity or the total value of currency and valuables Treasury of the Lovian government are safeguarded ? Lars 17:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :Ad now I'm off, I'm starving! Lars 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC) ::I mean the total, the current account balance. See this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance :: 17:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Hiring The Department of Finance is hiring: * trained economists *: Requirements: degree in economics or long-time experience in the financial/economic sector. *: Please contact the Secretary. (Urgent!) Percival E. Galahad 15:32, June 12, 2010 (UTC) * I'd like to try it Jon Johnson 15:48, June 12, 2010 (UTC) (it 'll be the long time experience) * Count me in, I'd like to give it a try! BastardRoyale 16:00, June 12, 2010 (UTC) * Yes i shall give you the long time while jonshon will be you the fancy stuff together along with the newcomer BR will be fiine Marcus Villanova 15:48, June 13, 2010 (UTC) :Nice to see there is so much concern for this topic. I wont come up with fancy proposals but I will keep an eye on it. 11:21, June 14, 2010 (UTC) ::Thank you all. You are all hired. These are your positions at the Department of Finance: ::* Jon Johnson: Chief Tax Policy ::* Philip Bradly-Lashawn: Chief Government Expenses ::* Marcus Villanova: Chief Fiscal Services ::I will get ourselves a hall where we can discuss our first new tax policies. Percival E. Galahad 10:57, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Am I too late? Kunarian 20:48, June 30, 2011 (UTC)\ Yeah this is a conversation from last year. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:27, June 30, 2011 (UTC) Taxation We will need taxes, I fear. Perhaps we already have, but I can't find anything on that. What kind of taxes would be the most beneficial to the state and the least damaging to the people and our economy? Percival E. Galahad 15:44, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :You're right. We need taxes, because it's unreal not to have taxes and still to spend money. What kind of taxes we need? I don't know. I'd say: ask Johnson or Medvedev or anyone good at economics 17:58, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :: Depends on what kind of country you want this to be. If you want it to be a Welfare-state (Universal healthcare, free education, social support and so on) taxes should be high. If you don't want that, taxes should be lower. --Rasmusbyg 21:18, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :::I'll work some things out, when I find time, their are several possibilities concerning taxes, and maybe it's for the best that we use more than only one type, not to make it more difficult, but it helps monitoring by the government, it makes a difference, but that is for later, perhaps we need to sit together once, percival? Jon Johnson 21:30, June 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::I'd say a progressive and green taxation system: taxing consumption, speculation, big capitals, combined with less taxes for 'green' companies or products. 06:45, June 13, 2010 (UTC) :::No taxation without representation! BastardRoyale 08:47, June 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::I'm not really in favor for representing the big capitals and polluters. This isn't the US where big lobbies can buy politicians. 08:57, June 13, 2010 (UTC) :::::Indeed, we'll work on taxation very soon, and we'll try to do well for everyone Jon Johnson 12:53, June 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::::@percy: I bet your party doesn't like progressive taxes: "Generally speaking, the Liberal Democrats do not want to have a system of progressive taxation in Lovia." Nor do the waldeners, btw. 11:19, June 14, 2010 (UTC) I know little of financial policies, but I do support taxes on tobacco. Why? Let me cite Wikipedia: :"One of the reasons that public health officials support cigarette tax increases is because many studies show that this leads to a decrease in smoking rates. The relationship between smoking rates and cigarette taxes is in fact very elastic; the greater the amount of the tax increase the greater the proportion of smokers who stop smoking.12 This is especially prevalent amongst teenagers." The state could easily tax $3 per pack. In New York City, taxation is "$4.25 per pack". Would there be support for tobacco taxation in Lovia? I mustn't mention that the state could fund hospitals and schools with this tax money...! -- 15:42, June 14, 2010 (UTC) :i would certainly support that! 15:50, June 14, 2010 (UTC) ::Good! -- 15:55, June 14, 2010 (UTC) :::I support this too @those-who-oppose-progressive-taxation-out-of-liberal-dogma: there are very good economic reasons to support progressive taxation. If you take more from the rich to give it to the poor, consumption will rise since the surplus value of the taxed/invested money is multiple times higher to the poor guy you give it too than to the rich chap you took from. In other words: progressive taxation = higher consumption = more wealth created! 16:00, June 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::I do not oppose progressive taxation, though I wish to be careful with it. We definitely need some form of progressive taxation: you cannot possibly tax a miner as much as you can tax our Majesty! -- 16:10, June 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::I was adressing the LD/WLP who, so it seems, both 'do not want to have a system of progressive taxation'. 16:12, June 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Maybe they read this too, at Wikipedia: "A study from the libertarian Institute for Policy Innovation, which aims to reduce government intervention in the economy, has concluded that progressive taxes fail to decrease real income inequality.28" ... --Arthur Jefferson 16:14, June 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I like the way we reason around here, but we need to have a fully studied report! and a fully worked out act, but as i said, i'm having examinations right now, so i'll work on it, within two weeks, i nhave a full plan prepared in my heat, and yes it contains some minor progressivism, but is depends, as i said, from product to product. Jon Johnson 16:16, June 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::And with minor you mean...? @Arthur: I never said progressive taxation alone would do the thing. 16:19, June 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Major, but unnoticed , wouldn't that be great! :p Jon Johnson 07:39, June 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::Aren't 'sluiptaksen' something liberals would go for? 08:20, June 16, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::Very much possible Jon Johnson 07:12, June 17, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::Hey Sjonnie! 07:27, June 17, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::::In my opinion, taxes on tobacco is not a good solution, because to me, this means the government would be getting mony out of unhealthy habits,... just to pay the costs for the health insurance. We should start taxing the tobacco multinationals with their lobbying groups, that sounds more like it. --Lars Washington 11:32, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::Correct, sir Washington. Also realise old habits die hard. I smoke and drink myself and even though people keep telling me its unhealthy, the doctor still assures me I'm extremely healthy (I eat vegetables and fish and do sports). Its a personal choice, we should allow the people to make the choice. You have the choice to be unhealthy if you desire to be unhealthy, all the government should do is stimulate a healthy lifestyle. I believe fastfood chains like McDonalds and Burgerking are way worse for national health then a beer or a smoke will ever be. BastardRoyale 11:38, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :Government should focus on taxing the production/import of such products more than focussing on the consumer who is in a lot of cases a victim of his addiction. The capital thus generated should be used to build an arsenal of support measures. Also note that poverty and the (excessive) consumption of alcohol/cigarettes have a strong correlation. 10:21, June 19, 2010 (UTC)